Arnold Worldwide’s new campaign for Brown-Forman’s Southern Comfort brand breaks new ground in two areas. First, it is an integrated campaign in its execution, not just theory. Second, it will place a hard-liquor brand on cable TV.The new campaign is set for launch next week across the U.S., Europe and Australia. Arnold Worldwide-St. Louis, as global advertising agency-of-record for the brand, has created a campaign that integrates print, TV, radio, outdoor and a new tag line: "Southern Comfort, between friends." Arnold Worldwide Integrated Solutions will manage event marketing, bar promotions, interactive design and e-marketing in the U.S. Online and offline US media planning and buying are being handled by arnoldMPG.“We saw an opportunity with this brand to bring true integration to the campaign, not just speak to it,” says Bill Mueller, EVP at Arnold St. Louis. “The client was committing to making it happen, and our agency was committed to making it happen. That tends to make some of the obstacle to integrated campaigns easier to overcome.”Errol Morris, whose work includes the groundbreaking documentary The Thin Blue Line, directed the new Southern Comfort TV with Arnold Worldwide-St. Louis creative director Mark Ray. Those spots will start next week on several cable networks. Mueller says both Arnold and Brown-Forman are aware of the controversy surrounding TV advertising for hard liquor brands. Anti-liquor ad advocates have claimed that it potentially conveys a pro-drinking message to an audience under 18. “Our philosophy is that you go beyond the legal requirements in regard to age appeal,” Mueller says. “That’s Brown-Forman’s philosophy too. All the people cast in the TV spots are over 25. And the message is tied to how people connect with this brand. It has a rational component and an emotional component. It’s not about how Southern Comfort will improve your chances with the opposite sex. It’s more low-key than other hard-liquor ads I’ve seen.”Mueller said the “between friends” tagline resulted from extensive worldwide consumer research. The goal, he said, was to “celebrate customers as much as the product.”
Amtrak’s signature high-speed rail service Acela has traveled some rough rails in its brief history. But maybe the toughest stretch has been this past summer, when a near-shutdown of the entire line and mechanical problems halted Acela in the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak hasn’t yet addressed the problems in its marketing campaign, which is centered on the Acela between Boston and Washington, D.C. Troubles with Acela are particularly worrisome for Amtrak. Competition between rail and the USAir and Delta shuttles are fierce, and Acela had been helping Amtrak win market share among business travelers. In the past five years, Amtrak’s share of the Northeast Corridor market has jumped from 19% to 42% as the airline’s share has fallen from 81% to 58%. When Acela was announced in the late 1990s, Amtrak pinned its hopes and a great deal of advertising on the service. Amtrak began a branding campaign, first explaining the unusual name (a combination of acceleration and excellence) and then touting the comfort and convenience. “There was a lot of anticipation about the service and the name,” said Barbara Richardson, Amtrak’s chief of marketing and sales. The awareness was heightened by a teaser campaign. Awareness was heightened in a different way in the fall of 1999, when the launch date was postponed because of mechanical problems. Ads were pulled, although some had run. It wasn’t until more than a year later, in December 2000, that Acela finally got under way. “Clearly, it was a major embarrassment when Acela didn’t start when they said it would,” said Richard Barsness, professor of management at Lehigh University. “You don’t want to promote your service to the point where you can’t meet the demand.” Rumors of service interruptions, or changes from Acela Express to slower Amtrak service on the Northeast Corridor, have plagued Acela even as its popularity among business travelers has grown. It reached a height with the halt to Acela this summer, which was also marked by a threatened shutdown for financial reasons. “This comes at a very bad time,” said John Spychalski, professor of business logistics at Penn State University. “They’re losing revenue every time they keep one of those trains offline.” But if it had to happen, Spychalski said, summer is probably the best time because of fewer business travelers. He said Acela’s continued high market share depends on whether Amtrak is able to complete the repairs quickly and keep the fleet healthy. But Spychalski said Amtrak could use these problems to their advantage with some savvy marketing. He pointed out that Amtrak’s management didn’t blink before removing Acela from service at the first sign of trouble. “Amtrak didn’t mess around,” he said. “They put safety first.” This could be capitalized on with Amtrak officials explaining their decisions and reassuring the rail-riding public that things are getting better and will stay that way. He pointed to a recent full-page ad in The Wall Street Journal from USAir’s CEO, explaining why USAir had filed for bankruptcy. Richardson, Amtrak’s marketing chief, said ads had gone up on some of Amtrak’s trains and other areas for passengers, explaining some of the changes. It might also be the subject or part of it in Amtrak’s fall campaign, which is still being designed. Richardson said the advertising people were thinking about that right now. Amtrak had planned to emphasize Acela’s schedule and frequency but may address other concerns now too. “We have lots of different ways of doing it,” she said. “We have to continue to tell people that we’re in business, are working to improve it, and let them know they can count on us.” A campaign that started in March – print, outdoor, radio and some TV in the major markets between Washington and Boston – has pretty much run out. Some of the sports sponsorships continue, such as radio spots within baseball games and big signs at Shea Stadium in New York and the MCI Center in Washington, D.C. It hasn’t been decided yet what the media mix will be for this fall’s campaign.
The news media industry covering the Webcasting royalty debate recently came under fire for their generally one-sided coverage of the issue, with virtually every report siding with the Webcasters whose business, and possibly the future of Internet radio, are threatened by the fees. On the other side is the recording industry, which seeks the fees for artists and record labels. Webcasters now play recorded music without paying performance fees to the artists or labels. Of course, terrestrial radio works that way, too, with ASCAP/BMI fees due to composers of songs but none to the actual performers or recording companies. Are the Webcasting royalty fees justified? MDN spoke with Steve Marks, senior vice president of business and legal affairs for the Recording Industry Association of America, which has led the drive to collect the fees. MDN: What is the history of performance fees for recorded music? Marks: Record companies got rights for performance fees seven years ago. Traditionally, when music was publicly performed they didn't have to pay for it. When radio uses music, they don't pay for sound recordings, which is an anomaly when you look at other countries where they do pay. Congress passed laws granting rights limited to digital performances. They grandfathered the old world and provided rights going forward in the new world. The 1995 Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act was the first attempt, but it didn't cover sound recordings over the Internet. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998 added a few things to the '95 act and gave a statutory license to Webcasters. MDN: What happened since '98, when the DMCA was passed? Marks: Our goal was to negotiate an industry wide deal and we set out within months of the law to do it. We initially had talks with the Digital Media Association, but they were not in a position to negotiate on behalf of their members, so we talked with individual Webcasters. We signed 26 deals with Yahoo! and others, but it was very difficult for us to negotiate with them, because the law allows Webcasters to use music without an industry-wide rate set, so there was little incentive for them to do deals and they had a lot of leverage in the negotiations. They had our music knowing they might not have to pay for a couple of years, but we signed 26 deals. We couldn't reach agreement with everybody, so there was an arbitration. We presented the deals to CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel) with indications about what the rate should be. MDN: Why did CARP use the Yahoo! deal to establish the rates, if you signed 26 deals? Marks: The arbitrators focused on Yahoo! because it was a very successful Internet company that had significant market power. The problem was, they didn't understand the market and the fact there are large, small and medium players and some of them were disregarded. It's a very competitive marketplace where access to capital is key. Some had an easier time getting it than others. In the end, they came up with a rate based on the interpretation of the Yahoo! deal. We disagree very strongly with the arbitrators and Librarian of Congress decisions because we think the rates are too low. The Librarian's decision was more egregious. They were duped by Yahoo!, which characterized the deal and the business in a way that led the Librarian to interpret the deal in a very misguided way. A couple days after the Librarian's decision, Yahoo! dropped radio transmission and focused on Internet only. We argue they planned to do that all along and the Librarian's decision saved them from paying the higher rate for Internet only. The Librarian was duped by them. MDN: What do you think of the proposed Congressional legislation that will exempt small Webcasters from paying the fees? Marks: We're talking with small Webcasters and trying to reach a deal with them. We think that Congress should give the market a chance to work after this long process. We have the opportunity to sit down and talk but they're introducing legislation instead of allowing us to negotiate. It's not the right way to go. Plus, there are a number of problems with the legislation. It gives complete exemption to anyone with less than $6 million in revenue, but that's the entire industry now since it's in its infant stages. Maybe one or two companies make more than that. MDN: Who will the fees actually be paid to? Marks: The fees will come into SoundExchange (the trade association for the recording industry), which will distribute them to artists and copyright owners, which are the labels. They each get 50 percent. It will be the first time they've ever been paid for performance here. Almost every other developed nation in the world has it already.